Mittal Educational & Welfare Society, Jalaun V. Commissioner of Income Tax (E), Lucknow

ITA 335/LKW/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Mittal Educational & Welfare Society, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Lucknow, rejecting their application for registration under section 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The society had filed for registration on 08.04.2015, which was rejected due to non-compliance with procedural requirements as they failed to appear for hearings. The society later filed an appeal which was significantly delayed. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the excessive delay and lack of substantial reasons or evidence to support the condonation of such delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123023 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Non compliance; Condonation of delay
• Section: 10(23C)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.335/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year: N.A. Mittal Educational & Welfare Society, 68B, Chimman Dubey, Jalaun, Jalaun(U.P.) 285123 PAN: AABAM 6593N Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Lucknow. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 21.01.2016 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [hereinafter called the [CIT(E)], Lucknow, wherein, vide the impugned order the assessee’s application for registration u/s. 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee society had filed application for registration u/s. 10(23C) of the Act on 08.04.2015. As per the facts narrated in the grounds of appeal, the society had been registered with the Registrar of Societies on 12.12.2007 with the sole/primary object being imparting of education. Further the society runs a Degree College in the name of ‘Seth Virendra Kumar Mahavidyalaya’. Appellant by None present for the assessee Respondent by Shri S.H. Usmani, CIT (DR) Date of hearing 26/06/2023 Date of pronouncement 26/06/2023 I.T.A. No.335/Lkw/2020 2 2.1 The assessee society was afforded an opportunity of being heard and specific queries were also called for by the ld. CIT(E). The date fixed for hearing and compliance was 22.12.2015. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee society nor was any application for adjournment moved before the ld. CIT(E). Subsequently, another date for hearing and compliance was fixed for 21.01.2016 and on this date also the assessee neither filed any application for adjournment nor attended the proceedings. In view of the non compliance by the assessee, the ld. CIT(E) proceeded to reject the assessee’s application for registration. 2.2. Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(E), the assessee has now approached this Tribunal, challenging the rejection of its application by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the order passed by Ld CIT (Exemption) is erroneous on the facts of the case and Law as well. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Exemption) grossly erred, in concluding that the society is for the purpose of profit, without recording any finding. 3. That the Ld CIT (Exemption) grossly erred in concluding that an institutions applying for registration/exemptions u/s 10(23C) (iiiad) should be approved by prescribed authority. There is no such requirement as per law. 4. The Ld. CIT (Exemption) grossly erred in concluding that the object of education purpose, genuineness of activities not proved as all. 5. The LD CIT (Exemptions) grossly erred in concluding that – a) Assessee incurred huge expenses, which is not verifiable. b) Not for educational purposes. c) Not approved by prescribed authority. I.T.A. No.335/Lkw/2020 3 d) Society running for profit & not for educational purposes. e) Income being applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of beneficiaries. 6. The Ld. CIT (Exemptions) grossly erred both on law and facts as well by not granting the registration, without providing reasonable opportunity to prevent the case and his action is against the principle of Natural Justice.” 3.0 None was present on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called for hearing nor was any adjournment application moved on behalf of the assessee society. 3.1. A perusal of the order-sheet entries shows that the appeal is time barred by 1649 days. The assessee has prayed for condonation of delay vide application for condonation of delay, which reads as under: “Before, The Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pickup Bhawan, 5 th floor, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Ref:- Mittal Education & Welfare Society Chimandubey, Jalaun,U.P A.Y: 2013-14 PAN-AABAM6593N Appeal No. ITA/335/LKO/2020 Sub: Submission of form 36 and application for condonation of delay Honorable Sir, Kindly refer to your letter dated 09.12.2020 intimating delay in filing the appeal. This is very humbly prayed that: The Appeal could not be filed in time due to death of the mother of the manager (after prolonged illness) of the society & subsequently I.T.A. No.335/Lkw/2020 4 due to his own illness (depression due to the reason for his natural love and affection towards her) and the entire process derailed as the entire docket of papers was misplaced by the local lawyer who was entrusted to file the appeal. In view of the above your honours are very humbly prayed to condone the delay and allow the appeal to be heard. This is very humbly prayed that the delay may kindly be condone and appeal is admitted. Thanking you Yours faithfully Mittal Education & Welfare Society. Date: 20.12.2020 Place: Jalaun.” 3.2 It is seen that the above said application is not supported by any affidavit or documentary evidences. 4.0 A perusal of the order sheet entries also shows that this appeal was filed on 20.10.2020 and it was first fixed for hearing on 09.06.2022 but the assessee was not represented on this date. Subsequently, the case was adjourned to 26.07.2022. On that date, the assessee prayed for adjournment and the hearing was adjourned to 13.09.2022. As the Bench did not function on 13.09.2022, a fresh notice of hearing was sent by Registered Post and the case was fixed for hearing on 15.05.2023. Again the assessee was not represented on that date. On 15.05.2023 the case was adjourned to 26.06.2023 (i.e. today) and the notice for hearing was sent through registered post. Today, when the appeal was called for hearing, again, none was present on behalf of the assessee. It is also seen from the record that the notice for today’s hearing, which was dispatched by the Registry of the Tribunal on 19.05.2023, has not been returned unserved. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the notice for today’s hearing has been served on the assessee. However, the assessee has neither cared to send I.T.A. No.335/Lkw/2020 5 an adjournment application nor has made any efforts to get itself represented before this Tribunal. Therefore, based on record before us, we proceed to dispose of this appeal ex-parte qua the assessee. 5.0 It is seen from records, that admittedly and undisputedly, the present appeal before the Tribunal is time barred by 1649 days which in effect means that there has been a delay of more than four years in filing this appeal. As per the application for condonation of delay, the appeal could not be filed in time due to the death of the mother of the Manager of the Society and subsequently due to his own illness and also for the reason of papers being misplaced by the local lawyer, who was entrusted to file the appeal before the Tribunal. However, it is our considered view that the reasons as aforementioned do not make out a strong case for condonation of delay for a period of more than four years. The death of the mother of the Manager and subsequently his own illness are unfortunate incidents but the same do not appear to be very sound and logical for a delay extending beyond four years. Moreover, the contents of the application for delay condonation are neither supported by any affidavit nor by any other documents, such as medical certificates etc. Also the averment that the local lawyer had misplaced the papers, is not supported by any documents. Under such circumstances, we are unable to condone the delay of 1649 days and we dismiss the appeal as unadmitted due to being time barred. 6.0 In the final result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 26/06/2023) Sd/- Sd/- ( ANADEE NATH MISSHRA ) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 26/06/2023 Aks I.T.A. No.335/Lkw/2020 6 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Asstt. Registrar